MQScript MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'hide' but doesn't explain what happens to the floating window (e.g., if it's destroyed, minimized, or hidden from view), whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects like resource cleanup. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with 'Hide floating window', consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation to hide a floating window), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what 'hide' entails, which is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Floating window ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Hide floating window' clearly states the action (hide) and target (floating window), but it's vague about what 'hide' means operationally (e.g., minimize, remove from view, or background). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mqscript_fw_show' by implying opposite functionality, but lacks specificity about the resource's state post-hide.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for hiding floating windows, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing floating window), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'mqscript_fw_show' for toggling visibility.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.